LAWS(P&H)-2011-7-10

HINDUSTAN LEVER LTD Vs. GOVERNMENT FOOD INSPECTOR HOSHIARPUR

Decided On July 18, 2011
HINDUSTAN LEVER LIMITED Appellant
V/S
GOVERNMENT FOOD INSPECTOR, HOSHIARPUR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions have been placed before this Bench on a reference made by the learned Single Judge on 13.02.2009 expressing reservation with a view taken in Hasmukh Mewada v. State of Punjab,2008 3 LawHerald(P&H) 249. Learned Judge observed that the requirement to furnish complete address of the manufacturer in terms of Rule 32(c)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 includes the name of the State for the benefit of common consumer and that such issue is required to be examined by larger Bench.

(2.) The said question has arisen in this bunch of petitions in view of complaint lodged by the Government Food Inspector under Sections 7 & 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short the "Act") and Rule 32 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (for short the "Rules"). The samples in all these cases have been taken after 24.08.2005 but before 09.11.2006. The issue is legal but for facility of reference, the facts from Crl. Misc. No.M-40359 of 2007 are mentioned. In the said case, three packets of Red Label Tea were opined by the Public Analyst as misbranded for the reason that the complete address of the manufacturer i.e. name of the State has not been given. The exact opinion of the Public Analyst is as under:

(3.) The petitioner has sought quashing of the said complaint, inter alia, for the reason that the petitioner has disclosed the name of the manufacturer, city and the Pin code, therefore, the non-disclosure of the State is inconsequential and is not included in the expression "complete address" appearing in Rule 32(i)(c) of the Rules. Therefore, the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner are an abuse of process of law and cannot be permitted to continue.